Just when it looked like Chris Christie was on the verge of putting the Bridgegate scandal behind him, he may have gotten an unpleasant surprise from The New York Times. Apparently, federal prosecutors in New Jersey are considering at least one theory for indicting several people who planned the mass lane closures on the George Washington Bridge on federal charges. Specifically, prosecutors are mulling whether to charge them under the federal fraud statute.
For those who don’t remember, Paul Fishman, the U. S. Attorney for New Jersey, has jurisdiction over the case because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the bridge, is the product of an interstate compact between New York and New Jersey. Normally, official misconduct and malfeasance in office are state-level crimes. However, prosecutors are reportedly looking at bringing charges under Section 66 of the federal criminal code. That provision stipulates that if any employee of a government agency that receives more than $10,000 of federal money “intentionally misapplies” more than $5,000 worth of property under that agency’s control, that person could get as much as 10 years in federal prison. It’s normally used in cases of fraud and embezzlement by local officials.
If federal prosecutors decide to use this statute as a way to bring federal charges against the Bridgegate conspirators, they may hang their hats on how the lane closures were initially passed off as part of a “traffic study.” According to several of The Times’ sources, federal investigators have focused on testimony Bill Baroni, then Christie’s top staff appointee at the Port Authority, gave to state legislators in November. In that testimony, Baroni claimed that the “traffic study” was implemented at the request of the Port Authority police–a claim initially backed by the head of the Port Authority police union, John Nunziato. However, Nunziato has reportedly recanted this statement. Prosecutors are also mining for testimony on how a real traffic study is supposed to work. On another front, prosecutors seem to be looking into whether the Port Authority was used as a tool to help Christie’s 2013 reelection campaign. They’ve reportedly sought testimony from local officials and union officials who were promised jobs or benefits if they endorsed Christie.
For those who are wondering why so little has been heard about the case, fear not–that’s actually a good thing. A good federal criminal investigation is supposed to be slow and painstaking, with a view toward amassing enough evidence to screw the defendant eight ways to Sunday. For instance, Fishman’s counterpart across the Hudson, Preet Bhahara, spent almost five years investigating JPMorgan Chase for turning a blind eye to Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. They ultimately amassed enough evidence that Chase CEO Jamie Dimon was forced to come to St. Andrews Plaza as a supplicant begging for mercy. Ultimately, Chase accepted a deferred prosecution agreement and coughed up over $2 billion in fines and forfeitures. While The Times’ sources say that the investigation is likely to stretch into 2015, the fact that prosecutors are even considering potential theories should make those who planned this outrageous and criminal stunt very afraid. Christie should be nervous as well. After all, if the investigation gets too close to him, it will almost certainly spell finis to any presidential ambitions.
Let us know your thoughts at the Liberal America Facebook page. Sign up for our free daily newsletter to receive more great stories like this one.
Darrell Lucus, also known as Christian Dem in NC on Daily Kos, is a radical-lefty Jesus-lover who has been blogging for change for a decade. Follow him on Twitter @DarrellLucus or connect with him on Facebook.
